Is the 7th at NGLA better than the 17th at TOC ?

[Brian Phillips]

The hotel extension has stolen a lot of the strategy of the hole because it stops a lot of players going even longer off the tee.  The hotel extension is so close to the back tee now that anyone with a big draw will be pretty annoyed when they come to that tee.  

If the hotel was taken away it would be an even better Par 4 almost like a Machrihanish no.1 or North Berwick no.2. Chew off as much as you want.  You can't do that if your normal shot is a draw.

Brian

[ChipOat]

Tom Paul:

I don't agree with you in terms of par being meaningless from an ARCHITECTURAL perspective.

#7 at NGLA is IMO a lousy par 4 at almost any length except possibly very short.  The angle and shape of the green is all wrong to receive a "routine" shot of any substantial length.  The Road Hole at TOC is not like that.  Plus you can drive further right at St. Andrews to get a better angle.

Any great long par 4 you can think of has an appropriate green complex for the approach shot required - there are 100+ examples worldwide that have been discussed here.

Par is irrelevant in terms of the number being posted by the player for the hole, the round, or the tournament.  4=4, 70=70 and 280=280.  Par is only a frame of reference when the subject being discussed is score.

But that is not the subject I was discussing.

The subject I was discussing was the architectural merits of 2 specific golf holes - similar in many ways but somewhat different in terms of the expectations placed upon the scratch golfer by their design.  In that case, the concept (and definition) of par is absolutely, critcally, essential.

Tom Huckaby:

Is one now permitted to play TOC from the "medal tees" or were you taking liberties on #17 to enhance your experience to the max?

 

[THuckaby2]

Chip:

Visitors are very clearly steared toward the yellow tees, one set up from the back tees, and in some cases WAY up from where the big boys play in the Open.

On 17, however, there's not very far back to go - there's really just one tee "box" and it backs up against the road, next to 16 green.

We hit from as far back as we could and yes, took liberties - on this hole only.  The point is, it wasn't tough to do.

And Brian's right again - woe be to the man who hits a draw... He has to take it RIGHT up against the hotel itself and hope for the best.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think Brian Philips has it right,
Without the artificial building plunked down in your path, the hole would be much easier.  If I plunked a similar building down on # 7 at NGLA you'd have a much more difficult tee shot.

I also agree with Chipoat.
I think par does make a difference.

I also think that the angle of the 7th green at NGLA is much more difficult than the angle of the green at # 17 at TOC from the midpoint of the fairway, at every distance, and I think the configuration of the green at # 7 is more difficult than the configuration of the green at # 17, from the midpoint of the fairway, at any distance.

[TEPaul]

Chip Oat said:

"The subject I was discussing was the architectural merits of 2 specific golf holes - similar in many ways but somewhat different in terms of the expectations placed upon the scratch golfer by their design.  In that case, the concept (and definition) of par is absolutely, critcally, essential."

Chip:

I'm really not that sure what your point is when you bring the idea of "par" into the question when comparing TOC's #17 and NGLA's #7.

Are you just saying you think it's harder to make a 4 on NGLA's #7 because of its architecture, green orientation, whatever? If so, I suppose that might be a rather easy discussion to have.

Firstly, I've never actually seen TOC's #17 in person and obviously I've never played it so it's hard for me to talk about its green, the orientation of it or whatnot.

But I did watch the guy I lost to in this year's NGLA Singles tournament hit a good drive on the hole, a good utility wood that landed short of the green and just to the right of the road bunker, run up on the green where he sunk the putt for an eagle (par 5) or what would've been a birdie (as a par 4).

It's definitely not a green that's easy to hit in two shots but clearly either is TOC's #17 because so few players, even tour pros in the British Open, seem to actually try to hit the green in two. Why would that be do you suppose?

Perhaps it's not because #17 is easier to hit exactly or NGLA's #7 is harder to hit in two that they seem not that willing to go for TOC's #17 in two (ironically even as a par 4), while I must say I've never really noticed that many players within range of NGLA's #7 refuse to try to hit that green in two that you claim is harder to hit in two than TOC's #17.  

Perhaps it has a good deal to do with the risk side of the risk/reward equation and not just which green is easier to hit in two shots. As we have clearly seen from the water level change situation some years ago on ANGC's #13 it doesn't take much at all to alter a very good and smart player's strategic considerations on certain types of holes.

So perhaps one might logically assume that the risk ramifications on TOC's #17 (a par 4) are much more severe than the risk ramifications on NGLA's #7.

So the discussion or comparison of these two holes logically should not be limited to which is harder to hit in two and make a 4 on but should also include what are the potential risks of either hole if you try to hit either in two and fail to do so. It would certainly seem logical to assume that the risk of going over TOC's #17 onto the road or up against the wall are far more dangerous than going over NGLA's #7 into the back bunker! It would seem to me from what I've seen in the British Open that getting out of the road bunker on TOC's #17 is potentially far more penal than getting out of the road bunker on NGLA's #7!

Both holes need to be looked at from many other points of view, in my opinion, and not just which one is easier to hit in two and make a 4 on. I think TOC's #17 seems more potentially dangerous, maybe far more dangerous than NGLA's #7--nevertheless TOC's #17 is the one that's the par 4 from exactly the same yardage--eg 476yds!!

So does par still matter that much to you or are there other important considerations when you look at these two holes architecturally and try to compare them--even in context of par 4 which again appears to me to be losing it's meaning regarding what all is concerned when playing these holes?

[TEPaul]

Chip Oat said;

"Any great long par 4 you can think of has an appropriate green complex for the approach shot required - there are 100+ examples worldwide that have been discussed here."

Chip:

There are hundreds of examples out there of the very thing you say but I don't believe that's a remark I'd agree with--certainly not totally--and because of that will offer a few examples that might just prove that the exception to the rule really can and does work--and sometimes just brilliantly.

Although it's commonly accepted that a long par 4 hole tends of have a green that is accomodating to long second shots it seems to me there're some out there that don't exactly offer this architectural perscription and are not the worse for it. Matter of fact a few of them are famous and respected for the fact that they can hold their heads high even while offering real complexities or high demand for the long second shot.

Even a number of respected architects from the old days have written that generally long second shot holes have far more accomodating greens to the second shot than do shorter holes but that it's a good thing to mix up this perscription or apparent formula from time to time.

A few examples of long par 4s that don't have accomodating greens to long second shots although they may actually appear to.

Creek's #6
Merion's #5
Merion's #18
NGLA's #3
Oakmont's #1
Oakmont's #10

I like holes like those architecturally if for no other reason that they can and do skew some things that taken to an extreme tend to get too formulaic and standardized in golf and golf architecture. Things such as the perception of "par" and the idea that all long two shot holes MUST have greens that are accomodating to long second shots.

The ultimate fascination certainly does lie in the fact that the holes listed above really do seem to break that formula or commonly accepted architectural practice or standard and get away with it to such a degree that they become holes that are considered world class, great and highly respected.

DIFFERENCE in golf architecture is wonderful thing in my book and I love the idea that when golfers think they know what to expect or what sometimes seems to be absolutely necessary or standard, a good architect might just throw them that really odd change up every now and again!

[ChipOat]

Tom Paul:

Meetings today - will think this through and reply afterwards.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Things have been too quiet, it's time for us to disagree again.

The 3rd green at NGLA is HUGE, and it's sloped front to back.
The 6th green at The Creek is large and has a punchbowl feature on the surrounding perimeter.

The 5th at Merion is huge if you include the seemless fairway that evolves into that green

The 18th at Merion is effectively larger due to the initial front to back nature of the green.

With respect to Oakmont, I don't think you can view those greens in the context of how long the holes play today.
I think you have to view them in the context of their original yardage, and, you have to include the runup fairway areas short of the green, much like Merion.

Haven't you learned anything since I refined your architectural eye ?  

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Many of the holes I mentioned do have very large greens but so what? How easy are they to hit correctly and make a four on? Not easy at all.

You know the story on NGLA's #3--it's enormous but most definitely a green that basically has a few greens within it that can be really hard to transition a putt from the incorrect portion to another. The two I mentioned at Merion are also large as are Oakmont's but are anything but easy to hit with even good shots. Merion's #5 is incredibly sloped and hard to hold as is #18 and even such a course manager as Hogan had a unique way of playing to Oakmont's #1 & #10 they are so hard to hold. I walked all over Creek's #6 green a month or so ago although I haven't played played it in about 15 years and it sure didn't seem to me either large or oriented in such a way that looked to make it accomodating to a long second shot.

Again, NGLA's #7 is certainly by no means a small green, actuaally it's very large--just not easy to hit in two shots. Obviously either is TOC's #17 or clearly more pros in Opens there would try it---assuming the penality of missing it was not so severe!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I did some studying of that green (3) today.
It could be deemed to be many greens within a green, and offers a myriad of approach, recovery and putting challenges.

I was looking at # 7 today.

The tee shot is blind, but doesn't have the man made structure in your face on the tee.

The ability to understand the need to hit your second shot to
ideal areas, from which to play your third shot is paramount.

Off of tight, firm fairways, I want to see golfers attempt to hit an L-Wedge from 10-50 yards from the green when the pin is in the front penisula.

Bill Salinette & Matt Burrows have that course playing as it was intended, and that approach to # 7 is more ferocious then ever.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

One of the real strengths of NGLA's #7 green is the green to the right of the road bunker is just so shallow but so hard to tell that by standing out from it and looking at it. The bunkering behind the green can't be seen until you get on the green.

In many ways the road hole green at Maidstone is just about as good as NGLA's #7 with the exact same feature--a very shallow right green section with the danger behind it impossible to see until you get up on the green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

MacDonald's genius may have been that he improved upon the design of a hole he chose as templates.

I feel that the 7th at NGLA is a superior green to the 17th at TOC, just like I feel that the 4th at NGLA is superior to its template at North Berwick.

I haven't seen the original bottle hole he copied, but it would be hard to imagine it surpassing # 8 at NGLA.